Law School Discussion

"168" on June 1994

"168" on June 1994
« on: September 17, 2007, 12:43:21 PM »
Does anyone else consider this exam to be difficult?  I'm becoming more and more sullen as the Sept. 29 deadline approaches.

The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does not prove that the much smaller amount of tobacco smoke inhaled by nonsmokers who share living space with smokers harms the nonsmokers to some degree.  Many substances, such as Vitamin A, are toxic in large quantities but beneficial in small quantities.

Parallel Reasoning . . .

A)  Although a healthful diet should include a certain amount of fiber, it does not follow that a diet that includes large amounts of fiber is more healthful than one that includes smaller amounts of fiber.  Too much fiber can interfere with proper digestion.

E)  Although watching television for half of every day would be a waste of time, watching television briefly every day is not necessarily even a small waste of time.  After all, it would be a waste to sleep half of every day, but some sleep every day is necessary.

Damn, damn, damn!  I don't have nearly as much trouble with the new LR Parallel-Reasoning questions than with these.

Re: "168" on June 1994
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2007, 01:41:57 PM »
I looked this test up. I would say its not particularly difficult. On RC I got -1 and my average is -4. And combined LR I got -5 and my average is -9. Sometimes when you overwork yourself the returns begin to diminish. Take a good break and get back fresh after a day or two.

The answer is E because the reasoning goes something like this " because X harms someone doesnt mean small amount of X harms someone. Afterall Y, that is bad is large quantity is good in small quantity"

E matches this perfectly because it has X= tobacco=watching TV and Y= Vitamin A = Sleeping. B on the otherhand has only X = fiber and no Y.